Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully flags the GET-vs-write mismatch and the confirmation gate. However, it never says what the operation actually destroys — presumably invalidating the previous token/share link — which is the key consequence an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, followed by the constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive non-idempotent operation, the description should say what a successful refresh returns (a new token?) and what happens to the old one. It covers the confirmation requirement and endpoint but leaves the outcome and old-token behavior unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so report_id, confirm, and the credential parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the report_id in the path and the confirm=true requirement, adding no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (refreshes) and a unique resource (report share token) plus the underlying endpoint GET /docs/:report_id/refresh_token. No sibling tool touches share tokens, so an agent can distinguish it from update_report or create_report immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: it is a sensitive write operation that requires confirm=true. There is no sibling alternative to route against, but it never states the triggering condition (e.g., a leaked or expired share link), so context is clear rather than complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.